Direct quantification of cell-free, circulating DNA from unpurified plasma

• Published in: PloS one 2014-03, Vol.9 (3), p.e87838-e87838
• Main Authors: Breitbach, Sarah, Tug, Suzan, Helmig, Susanne, Zahn, Daniela, Kubiak, Thomas, Michal, Matthias, Gori, Tommaso, Ehlert, Tobias, Beiter, Thomas, Simon, Perikles
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Acute coronary syndromes; Analysis; Angina pectoris; Base Sequence; Biology; Blood; Body fluids; Cancer; Cardiac patients; Cardiology; Cardiovascular disease; Cardiovascular diseases; Case-Control Studies; Cell-Free System; Chloroform; Clinical medicine; Coronary artery disease; Coronary Disease - blood; Coronary Disease - genetics; Coronary heart disease; Deoxyribonucleic acid; Disease control; DNA; DNA - blood; DNA Primers; Exercise; Genetic research; Genomes; Health psychology; Heart; Heart attacks; Heart diseases; Humans; Medicine; Phenols; Plasma; Prevention; Qualitative analysis; Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction; Rehabilitation; Sports medicine; Tissues
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087838

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in body tissues or fluids is extensively investigated in clinical medicine and other research fields. In this article we provide a direct quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) as a sensitive tool for the measurement of cfDNA from plasma without previous DNA extraction, which is known to be accompanied by a reduction of DNA yield. The primer sets were designed to amplify a 90 and 222 bp multi-locus L1PA2 sequence. In the first module, cfDNA concentrations in unpurified plasma were compared to cfDNA concentrations in the eluate and the flow-through of the QIAamp DNA Blood Mini Kit and in the eluate of a phenol-chloroform isoamyl (PCI) based DNA extraction, to elucidate the DNA losses during extraction. The analyses revealed 2.79-fold higher cfDNA concentrations in unpurified plasma compared to the eluate of the QIAamp DNA Blood Mini Kit, while 36.7% of the total cfDNA were found in the flow-through. The PCI procedure only performed well on samples with high cfDNA concentrations, showing 87.4% of the concentrations measured in plasma. The DNA integrity strongly depended on the sample treatment. Further qualitative analyses indicated differing fractions of cfDNA fragment lengths in the eluate of both extraction methods. In the second module, cfDNA concentrations in the plasma of 74 coronary heart disease patients were compared to cfDNA concentrations of 74 healthy controls, using the direct L1PA2 qPCR for cfDNA quantification. The patient collective showed significantly higher cfDNA levels (mean (SD) 20.1 (23.8) ng/ml; range 5.1-183.0 ng/ml) compared to the healthy controls (9.7 (4.2) ng/ml; range 1.6-23.7 ng/ml). With our direct qPCR, we recommend a simple, economic and sensitive procedure for the quantification of cfDNA concentrations from plasma that might find broad applicability, if cfDNA became an established marker in the assessment of pathophysiological conditions.